A week or so ago, I made a statement along the lines of "I don't understand the arguments *against* the credit theory of money"

@KevinCarson1 here does a fantastic job of fleshing those out, on @C4SS

https://c4ss.org/content/61050

Capitalism in Inches and Pounds: A Parable

The argument that capitalists are needed to provide workers with means of production, and profit is their reward for doing so, is nonsense. All capitalists have are paper or digital claims on the right to allocate means of production or material resources. All of the actual material resources — means of production and raw materials...

Center for a Stateless Society

We all "intuitively" understand that "money" is "credit".

Our personal lives are based around IOUs, after all, not "upfront" cash.

You disagree? Sure.

But think of all the rounds of drinks you've bought based on the concept that at some point, it will all even out.

(And think of the times that you've realised that Steve probably isn't going to)

@neonsnake I would like to add, that the Italian word credere, which credit is based on means "believe", back then that probably had a bigger part of "trust" in the meaning.
Etymology is rarely an argument, but it can give you hints on ideas and intentions from those who named it.
Though I can be corrected if my etymology is off here.

@DerGiga I think that's cool.

My stance is largely based on "belief" or "trust", for sure.

@neonsnake Totally agree with you.
People do not know how much "capital" sits in cooperation and trust. Peace and stability is capital for every tank and plane that is not needed.
The first question I ask when I see a "disruptive company" I wonder: Is there any value to it, or did they just found another way to rip the copper out of our societal consent. Zero trust & sum thinking is amongst the greatest evils of our time.
Hope this wasn't too off-topic.
@DerGiga not off topic at all!